Questions are currently swirling over the status and fate of Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s longtime Foreign Minister, amidst growing speculation among Kremlin watchers that he may have fallen out of favor with President Vladimir Putin. This speculation has been fueled by a confluence of events, most notably the recent collapse of negotiations over a crucial summit between the Russian leader and President Trump.
Absence Fuels Rumors of a Sidelining
The primary trigger for the recent wave of rumors was Lavrov’s conspicuous absence from the Kremlin this week. The 75-year-old diplomat, who has held his post since 2004, was not present when Putin announced he was considering a resumption of nuclear weapons testing. For a major national security announcement of this magnitude, the Foreign Minister would typically be expected to be standing at his president’s side.
This absence, combined with the backdrop of recent diplomatic setbacks, has led observers to suggest that the veteran diplomat—sometimes seen as the “gray man” of Russian diplomacy—has been sidelined or purged from Putin’s inner circle.
The Official Line: A Categorical Denial
In response to the mounting international and domestic speculation, the Kremlin has issued a firm rebuttal. Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Pascov tonight categorically denied reports of any tension or falling out between Putin and Lavrov.
“Nothing about these reports is true, of course,” Pascov stated, assuring the public and the diplomatic community that Lavrov “continues to work as the foreign minister.”
The Catalyst: A Collapsed Summit
The reports of Lavrov’s precarious position began to gain significant traction following the ultimate collapse of plans for a high-stakes US-Russia summit. The initial meeting between the Russian and US leaders took place in Alaska in August to discuss a potential end to the conflict in Ukraine.
Following that meeting, which did not produce a major breakthrough, the White House raised the possibility of another meeting, this time in the Hungarian capital of Budapest. However, those plans swiftly disintegrated.
A senior administration official revealed that the plans for the summit fell apart after what was described as a tense phone call between Lavrov and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in late October. During the call, the official said, Lavrov “became exercised” and emphatically reiterated Russia’s refusal to agree to a ceasefire ahead of any formal peace negotiations.
President Trump subsequently decided to “pull the plug” on the summit soon after, saying, “I don’t want to have a wasted meeting. I don’t want to have a waste of time.” Lavrov’s uncompromising stance during the crucial diplomatic groundwork appears to be the most proximate cause for the current cloud of suspicion over his standing.
A Long and Controversial Career
Lavrov’s diplomatic career has been long, colorful, and often controversial. He is known for his steadfast defense of the Kremlin line and his sometimes abrasive style.
Perhaps one of the most memorable episodes occurred in 2017, early in President Trump’s first term. Trump hosted Lavrov in the Oval Office only hours after firing the FBI director. During the meeting, Trump briefed Russia’s top diplomat on classified intelligence about ISIS, which had been shared with the US by Israel. The disclosure sparked an intense political firestorm.
A smirking Vladimir Putin later dismissed the entire White House meeting as “political schizophrenia,” even playfully chastising his own foreign minister for not sharing any of the secrets he learned. Despite the controversy, Lavrov has remained in his post for nearly two decades.
The Return of Kremlinology
In the darkest days of the Cold War, the practice of Kremlinology became a crucial tool for Western intelligence analysts. With little concrete information coming out of Moscow, analysts would meticulously study pictures of Soviet leaders’ meetings, attempting to decode who was standing where, who had been purged, and who was gaining power.
Tonight, with an influential veteran diplomat absent from a key security announcement and following a major diplomatic failure, the practice of Kremlinology may once again be back in fashion as the world tries to gauge the internal political dynamics of the Russian leadership.
About The Author
